SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, August 25, 2008 13:24
VIEWED: 10943
PAGE 6 of 15
Quote:It makes a mockery of marriage, I tell you, A MOCKERY!!! (Monkey pants not included)
Originally posted by Geezer:
But once again, how does same-sex marriage devalue or demean heterosexual marriage? How does gays marrying impinge on your rights?
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Also, a gay "marriage" devalues my marriage by putting it on par with dog-lovers, child rapists, and incestous folks. (See explanation in posts above)
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?"
Nope. Not at all. I just don't want it being brought down to that level.
Anyways....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obama is smart. 80%of America frowns upon gay marriages. Why would he risk losing all those votes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Funny, nothing anyone else does could bring my marriage to any other 'level'...maybe I'm not getting your full meaning.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?"
Nope. Not at all. I just don't want it being brought down to that level.
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Six, I realize that a lot of people feel that way,
but this is America, and people that feel that way need to ask themselves whether they are Americans or Christians first -
probably the latter in many cases,
the problem here is that some main-stream christian theology is directly contradictory to what this country was founded on(principles, not practice)
and frankly, that is a problem, if they let it dictate the direction that they want to take America, if they allow their beliefs to usurp the First Amerndment...etc.
I think an honorable approach, for the Christian American, is to hold whatever beliefs he has, and then to protect the first amendment, to protect the Constitution, because he believes strongly that the government should remain secular so that everybody, themselves included, can remain free to practice the religion of their choice as they choose.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No fair, Wulf - I thought we'd agreed (or at least I'd agreed) that you wren't gonna make me exert my brain, even a ittle bit (and it don't take much...) 
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
*sigh
Wash,
Would you support N.A.M.B.L.A. if they wanted to recognize themselves as being "married'?
Not trying to be coy here, but I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. If you're asking if I would be comfortable with the prospect of a "boy" (defined as being somewhere under 18 years of age) marrying a "man" (defined as 18 or older), the answer is...wait for it...NO. 'Cause I have a lot of weird, out-moded tapes playing in the back of my head, and they get me confused sometimes as to the difference between what I think is outright JACKED-UP and what just makes me feel squeamish (and what, if any of it, is any of my business). Having admitted that, lemme ask you this: Why should I be any more or less comfortable - personal prejudice, which I got some of, aside - with a 30-year-old man marrying a 16-year-old boy than I am with a 30-year-old man marrying a 16-year-old girl? (The latter is legal with parental consent in the state of Texas - not sure about elsewhere.) That big an age gap would make me uneasy regardless of the genders involved, but there's a difference between something making me "uneasy" and that same thing being "immoral".
Quote:
Im sure they could come up with a church that would marry them... Calling it the "Church of man-boy love, Dogs and Family Union".
Again, as far as your statement goes, I don't disagree with any particular...
Quote:
Or would that offend your morals?
If I'm making (or trying to make) any point here - and thank you for helping me get it crystalized in my mind - it is that my offended morals are often, if not always, beside the point. What offends me today may be my latest hobby a year from now (or not). If I thought something non-consentual or hurtful (to either party) was going on in either of the marriages described above, you can bet that, at the very least, my well-developed sense of righteous indignation would rise loudly and pointlessly to the occasion. That (abuse) would offend my morals. It would also presumably be covered by the same laws that apply to hetero marriages, and would therefor have the same chance of being effectively dealt with (or not) by those laws. The fact that a union is same-sex would not materially change the equation for me.
Wulf, as a past (and occasionally current) victim of the mesmerising power of the Slippery Slope argument, all I can say is that the "danger" often appears more "real" or "imminent" than it actually is.
EDIT to own up to flagrant abuse of "quotation marks".
It was like two people at least ATTEMPTING to reason together when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulfie, Wulfie, Wulfie,
Here's a question, and while it's going to seem harsh, it goes straight to the point...
who gives a fuck what 'devalues' your sense of marriage?
How is your sense of what marriage is any more valid than Tom and Tim's?
Why the fuck should they care? Why should I?
What if I were to say that your sense of marriage devalues mine? Cuz, frankly, it does.
I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way. Your version is soulless literal piece of shit in my mind.
And what I want you to say, and expect you to say, is you don't give a shit what I think of your idea of marriage, that's its your own personal belief, your own personal connection to the word, and that I have no business defining it for you...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous said:
"I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way."
So...you would be FOR the folks in NAMBLA being married? Im sure a 13 year old boy could be coerced into claiming consent to being abused. (Btw, just so you know, NAMBLA folks are right up there at the top of my list of people who should be culled right out of the population..preferably in the most horrible manner possible. GitMo would not have shit on what I would do to them.)
But then...what about the ones who want to marry their pet iguanas? You said 2 consenting "people"! Shame on you for your bigotry towards the animal loving community!
Civil Union don't need to have definitions.. Marriage, being a religious one, has and does.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Plus: more marriages = more divorces = more happy lawyers & a better economy.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way.
Half-fullisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME